Surprise! No warming in last 11 years

posted at 6:45 pm on October 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, a research team at Berkeley led by a former climate change skeptic released a study of global temperatures that intended to set the record straight on controversial data collected by the East Anglia Project, NASA, and other organizations that have acted as advocates for action based on anthropogenic global warming. Professor Richard Muller put together a graph of the data that supposedly showed warming from 1800 (roughly the beginning of the Industrial Era in Europe) through 1975, and then a steeper rise in temperatures that appears unstopped. When this data was released, newspapers and other media proclaimed it the end of AGW skepticism and demanded capitulation from the “deniers.”

This led to an interesting e-mail exchange between myself and one of my blogging friends, whom I won’t name because (a) the e-mails weren’t really intended for publication, and (b) he’s a good guy who is passionate about doing what’s right. I got an e-mail from him challenging me on this point, saying the correlation between rising temperatures and mass release of CO2 was undeniable. I explained to him that AGW skepticism doesn’t rest on the notion that global temperatures aren’t rising, but that the AGW crowd has yet to show causation between CO2 release and actual warming. He replied that correlation was enough to prompt action, but that’s neither scientific or wise. Correlation only shows that two trends parallel each other; if one isn’t the cause of the other, then “solutions” designed to change one trend won’t impact the other anyway — and it will waste time, money, and perhaps lives while the perceived problem continues unabated.

As it turns out, the correlation isn’t exactly equal, either. A closer look at the data and a Daily Mail interview with one of Muller’s team shows that the chart hides the fact that no warming has occurred in the last 11 years, as has been repeatedly pointed out:

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Let’s take a look at Muller’s chart, and then compare it to the chart for the last 13 years — which the Daily Mail labels an “inconvenient truth”:

First, let’s look at the top chart. A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal). Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world. What we end up with is a 30-year spike that also includes a few years of reduced industrial output, starting in the stagnating 1970s where oil production also got restricted thanks to onerous government policies and trade wars.

In climate terms, a 30-year spike is as significant as a surprisingly warm afternoon in late October. Man, I wish we were going to have one of those today.

But then look what happens in the past 11 years in the bottom chart. Despite the fact that the world’s nations continue to spew CO2 with no significant decline (except perhaps in the Great Recession period of 2008-9), the temperature record is remarkably stable. In fact, it looks similar to the period between 1945 and 1970 on the top chart. If global temperature increases really correlated directly to CO2 emissions, we wouldn’t see this at all; we’d see ever-escalating rates of increase in global temperatures, which is exactly what the AGW climate models predicted at the turn of the century. They were proven wrong.

And in fact, Curry explains that the failure of those models finally has some scientists going back to the drawing board:

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ …

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

And what of Muller? When confronted by the Daily Mail about the data from the past 11 years, he denied that temperatures had plateaued, and then admitted that the data shows exactly that:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Even perfect correlation doesn’t prove causation, and this is far from being perfect correlation. AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures, nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible, or even bad. As I pointed out to my friend, Greenland hosted a farming community for over 200 years before getting swallowed in ice in a global-cooling period that helped spread disease, death, and starvation throughout Europe. If Greenland once again becomes farmland, then we might be entering a somewhat more remarkable climate period in human history, but until then this is more properly referred to as weather.

BEST did help settle the temperature record, an important step in climate research and a necessary corrective to the manipulations discovered in Climategate. But they didn’t “prove” anthropogenic global warming or any kind of causation, and even their correlation proves rather weak.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I agree with ernesto that the AGW thing is a distraction from actual pollution issues. There are real problems that may have real solutions, and the carbon obsession takes money and attention from those problems

Again, this trend was predicted four decades ago or more, based on the known effects of heat-absorbing molecules of carbon dioxide. Of course, you would consider the (predicted) present dramatic temperature rises to be just a co-incidence. Pretty fantastic one, isn’t it?

Once again, Mr. Morrissey can’t seem to exercise any journalistic honesty or responsibility. The thinkers in the Hotair crowd will see the depths of your bias and this episode unfolds in the next few days.

oakland on October 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

It’s not the Ed lacks honesty or responsibility- the problem is that he lacks the background in climate science to assess specific evidence and its relevancy in the context of the larger body of data amassed through years of research. When lay persons assume the knowledge to start second-guessing the scientific community, the outcome is never good.

As in the case with global warming, every major research university in the United States has concluded that childhood vaccines do not correlate with autism, yet increasing number of parents have decided its best to second-guess the scientific community. Over 10% of children today are not vaccinated due to unfounded fears flamed online. Flashpoints of dormant diseases, such as whooping cough, are starting to resurface across the country. It’s a troubling sign of the consequences that follow from the cult of the amateur and the misguided perception that online commentators are qualified to override scientific consensus.

It’s not the Ed lacks honesty or responsibility- the problem is that he lacks the background in climate science to assess specific evidence and its relevancy in the context of the larger body of data amassed through years of research. When lay persons assume the knowledge to start second-guessing the scientific community, the outcome is never good.

As in the case with global warming, every major research university in the United States has concluded that childhood vaccines do not correlate with autism, yet increasing number of parents have decided its best to second-guess the scientific community. Over 10% of children today are not vaccinated due to unfounded fears flamed online. Flashpoints of dormant diseases, such as whooping cough, are starting to resurface across the country. It’s a troubling sign of the consequences that follow from the cult of the amateur and the misguided perception that online commentators are qualified to override scientific consensus.

bayam on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

It is not wrong to second guess portions of the scientific community if said portion has abandoned true scientific methods or perverted the presentation of “specific evidence and its relevancy”.

It is a lie to claim or to infer that AGW has a “scientific consensus”.

Particle pollution – especially fine particles – contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:

increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, for example;
decreased lung function;
aggravated asthma;
development of chronic bronchitis;
irregular heartbeat;
nonfatal heart attacks; and
premature death in people with heart or lung disease.
People with heart or lung diseases, children and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure. However, even if you are healthy, you may experience temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of particle pollution

Sulfur Dioxide also does nasty things to the human respiratory system, among other things. And we’re still only talking about environmental issues that are actually very real public health issues. We could expand the discussion to include the eradication of certain species of wildlife, some which may prove more essential than others, but I’m sure you’d dismiss anything like that out of hand.

“NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”

“The global uptake of carbon by land plants may be up to 45 per cent more than previously thought. This is the conclusion of an international team of scientists, based on the variability of heavy oxygen atoms in the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere driven by the El Niño effect. As the oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide were converted faster than expected during the El Niño years,”

And remember: these are the top scientists, the cream of the crop. Boy, are we in trouble if this is an example of their ethics, professionalism, and trustworthiness.

mbabbitt on October 31, 2011 at 12:13 AM

I disagree. Many, if not most, of these scientists only appear to be “top scientists” or “cream of the crop” because of their exposure through their academic positions, government positions, self-promotion or their pecking order at the money trough. The real top scientists are out making things happen and are too busy to dabble in lies and fraud.

I could name you several scientists I know personally, who are considered “tops” in their field, who would NEVER consider leaving their tenured academic safe-haven for fear of being “found out” as to an absence of a true level of applied knowledge.

1) If AGW is real, the amount is 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade. This would simply not be visible on the lower graph. This is why you need long time baselines to measure. 15-20 years is the minimum used for analysis. Does it not occur to you that a very specific range of time selected (11 years) has been cherry-picked as the only time range that does not show a clear rise? That’s because it is. 1998 had a massive El Nino. It’s like when the liberals tried to argue against Social Security privatization by picking a small time period when the market fell as their example of what would happen.

2) ” I explained to him that AGW skepticism doesn’t rest on the notion that global temperatures aren’t rising, but that the AGW crowd has yet to show causation between CO2 release and actual warming.”

What a load of baloney. You have referenced Climategate frequently over the last two years. Every time the subject comes up, you drag it out. Your commenters quote “hide the decline” like it’s this decade’s “who let the dogs out”. Now, all of the sudden, you’re pretending you weren’t disputing the temperature record?

And the temperature is secondary evidence of warming. The slow steady rise is a huge evidence against cosmic rays, solar cycles or orbital motion, which would show different temperature patterns.

(Standard disclaimer: If AGW is rule, this does not mean the Left’s solution are right. They aren’t.)

It’s not the Ed lacks honesty or responsibility- the problem is that he lacks the background in climate science to assess specific evidence and its relevancy in the context of the larger body of data amassed through years of research. When lay persons assume the knowledge to start second-guessing the scientific community, the outcome is never good.

bayam on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

??? Ed’s case is about correlation not being the same as causation. That’s a generic truth that holds regardless of the scientific discipline, because it’s an element of what the whole human race agrees is a “scientific” approach.

Ed is 100% correct. Correlation isn’t, inherently, causation. It may indicate causation, but causation has to be demonstrated. That’s a separate process from demonstrating correlation. It involves a separate theory of causation, and a set of relevant data points that will probably overlap the data that show correlation, but will almost certainly not be limited to the correlation data set. One doesn’t have to be immersed in the arcana of climate science to know that, any more than one has to be familiar with any other branch of science to be aware of the principle. Correlation is not the same thing as causation, nor is it evidence of causation.

Ed is also correct that if carbon emissions are the principal agent causing a one-way seminal warming trend for the earth, then as carbon emissions increase, average temperatures should increase. The data don’t show that happening. Yet that is the basic theory of causation propounded by AGW believers. Mr. Muller’s inability to clarify his position on this matter is a good indication that he recognizes the theory has not been bolstered by the data. Responsible scientists would consider the likelihood that the theory needs a critical examination.

Sheesh. The graph fudges the data so the pot can be stirred again, while the planet goes merrily on with its natural changes without a thought of the little gnats who scurry about its surface. Mother nature has done more damage to the climate that we puny humans could try on purpose to do, and the planet always bounces back. Sheesh.

A new book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise documents the corruption and fraud of the so called scientists working for the IPCC who are responsible for writing the IPCC’s Climate “Bible”. The IPCC’s Climate “Bible” is used by governments around the world to justify wasting billions of dollars on the cap and trade, green energy and numerous job killing climate change regulations.The fact the so called journalists in the media have not bothered to uncover the facts of the IPCC’s misinformation and out right lies with regard to their global warming findings is equally disturbing.

Hope these new exposes of so called IPCC climate scientists and Muller fudging their data will finally get the media to fess up and report about the biggest fraud perpetuated on human kind in history, the Global Warming fraud. By the way, Muller is also misrepresenting the facts about his bio when he refers to himself as a former skeptic. His record and numerous writings for years shows very clearly that he is a true believer in AGW.

When lay persons assume the knowledge to start second-guessing the scientific community, the outcome is never good.

bayam on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

This is the exact problem with you, bayam. You don’t understand the science.

It’s a troubling sign of the consequences that follow from the cult of the amateur and the misguided perception that online commentators are qualified to override scientific consensus.

Climate science is new and made-up, and they’re all giving each other positive peer reviews. Unfortunately, real scientists have deferred to this fools that disclose basic information about their research because they know it won’t stand up to real scrutiny.

You have referenced Climategate frequently over the last two years. Every time the subject comes up, you drag it out. Your commenters quote “hide the decline” like it’s this decade’s “who let the dogs out”. Now, all of the sudden, you’re pretending you weren’t disputing the temperature record?

Hal_10000 on October 31, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Hide the decline had nothing to do with disputing the temperature record that BEST looked at. Michael Mann swapped tree ring data in exchange for surface temperature data starting in the 1960s because his tree ring data was showing sharply declining temperatures since that time – which kinda ruins his claim that his tree rings correlated with temperatures going back 1,000 years.

I will never understand how climate “science” gets any scientific props at all. Just walk into a medical school library and wander the stacks with thousands of books with hundreds of thousands of publications which have gone through a peer review process. How much of that is truly clinically significant? A very, very small minority.

Would anyone acknowledge how difficult it is to get a drug to market? Not only would there need to be tightly controlled models showing some support for a significant benefit, but once a drug trial enters different phases in a human population, all bets are off, and many drugs never make it through the process. Toxicities are identified. Benefits are not found to be statistically significant. Etc.

The point is – I don’t understand how climate scientists can even imagine to control for every variable in any model they come up with. A computer model is only as strong as what variables it can control for – thus it would be limited by the creator of the model. If there are limitations to doing experiments in a homogenous bacterial or cell culture, due to intangible variables in those systems that may not be controlled, how can a climate change scientist even begin to say, “The science is settled!” Measuring temperatures over 150+ years consistently? On the same day every year? Same time every day? Same location, recorded by the same person? Same instruments used to collect the data? How is this controlled? How is that verified? How does that make the science settled? WTF!?!?!

It saddens me that people with PhD degrees try to stifle contrary results or questions. It doesn’t fit with the pursuit of scientific truth. Rather is smacks of intellectual dishonesty and a lack of academic integrity. I have seen multiple times during my graduate and medical training how data is “massaged” to deliver a conclusion consistent with an investigator’s particular agenda… because if the data showed otherwise, that would mean time lost to do the right thing, which is to ask why. Am I asking the right question? Is my hypothesis incorrect? Is my model relevant to study the question? Rather, it seems that science has become corrupted by alterior motives – primarily publications, securing grant funding, and tenure. I believe that what is considered “science” today would not stand the scrutiny it would have received 50 years ago.

Frankly, it seems to me that climate “science”, or whatever it is now become, has been corrupted by a political agenda – Dr. Muller appears to (at least now) only the latest example of this. Why does this not receive the same type of rigorous scrutiny as pharmaceutical development receives (for instance)? Sorry to say, I fear that there is a growing disregard for scientific integrity and ethics which will result in irreparable harm which will last for decades. It does seem more like a religion rather than science…

I consider myself an agnostic with this type of crap. So call me a denier, whatever. What we do know is what we can see, that there is a lot of $$$ which could be made by promoting this stuff. Just look at Al Gore.

This story is everything about yet another fraud being perpetrated in support of The Religion.

Maybe the leftist trash, last seen making the Keith Ellison like case that regulations are good for job creation, can see that it’s best not to jump the shark, getting the dumbest stable of columnists every assembled, at the Washington Post, once again proclaiming that the “science is settled” until this piece of leftist contrived garbage is at least reviewed.

As in the case with global warming, every major research university in the United States has concluded that childhood vaccines do not correlate with autism, yet increasing number of parents have decided its best to second-guess the scientific community. Over 10% of children today are not vaccinated due to unfounded fears flamed online. Flashpoints of dormant diseases, such as whooping cough, are starting to resurface across the country. It’s a troubling sign of the consequences that follow from the cult of the amateur and the misguided perception that online commentators are qualified to override scientific consensus.

bayam on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

False equivalency and an ad hominem does not build a case that the bottom graph is false. Typical Global Climate Alarmist dodge.

Discredited global warming scientist, Michael Mann, sees his last-ditch efforts to hide data fall apart as legal experts reveal a mountain of legal precedents against him. In his recent papers (filed on September 2, 2011) Mann claims ‘academic freedom’ and ‘proprietary materials’ as his defense. But legal experts who have since reviewed Mann’s submission to the Circuit Court of Prince William County, Va., say they are so full of holes they are doomed to fail.

by John O’Sullivan
CO2 Insanity

The three facts likely to be fatal to Mann’s case are:

Of more than 240 reported cases involving professor-v-university disputes the university almost always wins (note: Mann’s former university employer has already agreed to surrender Mann’s files).
Freedom of speech for professors at state universities has been restricted in a series of U.S. Supreme Court case rulings since 1977.
No American court has ever ruled to protect a former employee (Mann is no longer employed in Virginia).
Doomsayer’s Defeat Looms in Hockey Stick Face Off

If Shane Huntsman, and Mitt Romney had any political instincts at all, they would be distancing themselves from all this B.S. Whoever advised them to track toward AGW are fools. The public is always out in front of the pols, but this one was a no brainer, there is no upside to claiming membership in the warming cult to impress republicans or independents.

The above link is worth the read, when the FOIA produces Mann’s climate data, it’s all over but the crying.

It’s significant when AGW apologists start comparing the qualifications of scientists to the laity (like Ed). It belies the fact that academics are the new clergy and that we all have to close our eyes and believe their well-developed, peer-reviewed and occasionally doctored nonsense.

We don’t need scientists to tell us that the Sun does (or doesn’t) control the surface temperature of the earth. That’s obvious. We can even admit the AGW central claims and still be fine. A degree here or there is not significant and a bit more CO2 would probably help plant life. And the atmosphere does not resemble or behave like a greenhouse. By every typical measure (observation, analogy, prediction, testability, causation), AGW is a very weak theory.

That low explanatory performance is not correlated with the large number of scientific clergy, politicians and pundits that have an interest in its promulgation.

Climate science is still in its infancy, apparently, still waiting for its Newton. In the mean-time, can we have our money back?

Let’s examine ice core samples from around the globe going back 30 or 40 thousand years, then we’ll talk.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 31, 2011 at 7:14 AM

Agreed. Based upon your assessment, the topmost graph above only provides a data set only 20X the “nano-sec in geologic time” you cite above…

Regarding the ice core samples, how does that relate to concurrent temperatures at the equator? We’re there ice packs floating around the norther coast of Brazil? Or perhaps on the summit of Mt. Kilaminjaro? If using the latter, how does that correlate to surface concurrent temperatures? And how is that validated? The simple fact is that they cannot – because they can’t account for the many variables that can affect the planet’s temperature.

Admittedly, I am not an expert in this area, however I have never heard a climate scientist explain this in lay terms that make sense. And they’ll have to do a better job of it for the public to accept this. Physicians have to explain procedures and treatments to a patient so that the patient can make an informed decision. The days of, “Take this medicine because I told you to because the science is settled.” has not been part of clinical counseling since informed consent was developed as a result of Nazi atrocities in WW2. Simply trying to coach populations of people into believing global warming, let alone AGW, by saying the science is settled avoids any rigorous scrutiny any scientific data deserves….

At least Dr. Curry is trying to interpret the data as she sees it in its entirety. How it was validated (as Muller decided to bypass the peer review process), and what does it mean are entirely different questions at this point.

But there is a hell of a lot of money to be made trading carbon credits. As John D’Agostino says in the Afterword of Ben Mezrich’s book Rigged: The True Story of an Ivy League Kid Who Changed the World of Oil states, “Energy is one of the few things we trade with constant demand….. Until we trade elements, air (carbon credits), and water, nothing like it exists.”

I like the fact that the author points out the need to differentiate causation from correlation.

This reminds me of something I still remember from the very first day, of my first sociology class, where the professor described the need to understand the difference between correlation, and causation.

The professor said that given the number of cases of ice cream sold in Central Park during a month, he would be able to state, to a very close degree, the number of sexual attacks in the park during that month. There is a direct correlation between the amount of ice cream sold, and the number of sexual attacks in the park.

So, under the AGW alarmist reasoning, the sale of ice cream in Central Park should be banned immediately! It clearly causes people to become sexual predators!

Correlation does not equate to causation. The correlation between ice cream sales, and sexual assaults are both driven my the same factors – the weather, and the number of people using the park. But they are in no way directly related.

I believe that CO2, and global temperature are the same. There may be direct correlation between CO2 and global temperature, but there also appears to be a direct correlation between global temperatures and solar magnetic activity. And CERN’s CLOUD experiment shows that, that may be a much better candidate for the causation.

It’s not the Ed lacks honesty or responsibility- the problem is that he lacks the background in climate science to assess specific evidence and its relevancy in the context of the larger body of data amassed through years of research. When lay persons assume the knowledge to start second-guessing the scientific community, the outcome is never good.

As in the case with global warming, every major research university in the United States has concluded that childhood vaccines do not correlate with autism, yet increasing number of parents have decided its best to second-guess the scientific community. Over 10% of children today are not vaccinated due to unfounded fears flamed online. Flashpoints of dormant diseases, such as whooping cough, are starting to resurface across the country. It’s a troubling sign of the consequences that follow from the cult of the amateur and the misguided perception that online commentators are qualified to override scientific consensus.

bayam on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

too funny. Bayam lecturing on understanding science or the scientific method. What a joke.

And the idea that global warming (ahem, climatge change) was predicted 4 decade ago is an outright lie – which is par for the course from either Bayam or Oakland.

4 decades ago the “scientific community” believed we were entering an ice age. Also, nothing the “climate science” has predicted has come to fruition. You are such a dishonest joke Bayam as to make me wonder if you are really a sock-puppet meant to make fun of lefties. b/c your constant lies and changing arguments are a perfect parody of a dishonest, ignorant lefty who thinks he understands a subject but clearly does not.

Regarding the ice core samples, how does that relate to concurrent temperatures at the equator? We’re there ice packs floating around the norther coast of Brazil? Or perhaps on the summit of Mt. Kilaminjaro? If using the latter, how does that correlate to surface concurrent temperatures? And how is that validated? The simple fact is that they cannot – because they can’t account for the many variables that can affect the planet’s temperature.

Danny on October 31, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Did you know how limited Michael Mann’s tree ring samples were? Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick graph – the one Al Gore featured in An Inconvenient Truth – that erased the medieval warming period relied disproportionately on a dozen or so tree ring samples. In fact, he overweighted one of those trees because its rings indicated the most warming.

Is not science. It is what people claiming to be scientists believe. there is a big difference. When you have something other than belief, come back with your theory. Right now, all AGW has is belief. there is no science.

As in the case with global warming, every major research university in the United States has concluded that childhood vaccines do not correlate with autism, yet increasing number of parents have decided its best to second-guess the scientific community. Over 10% of children today are not vaccinated due to unfounded fears flamed online. Flashpoints of dormant diseases, such as whooping cough, are starting to resurface across the country. It’s a troubling sign of the consequences that follow from the cult of the amateur and the misguided perception that online commentators are qualified to override scientific consensus.
bayam on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Classic bayam. Telling Ed to shut up because he’s not a scientist and doesn’t supposedly understand the science…then going on to preach the impending DOOM!

I sure hope bayam has a PhD in a scientific discipline.

How many environmental disasters have lefties promised over the years that never materialized?

Not even Al Gore or the UN believes in climate change – they certainly don’t live their lives as if burning fossil fuels are going to destroy civilization. They are making lots of money exploiting fear though…

On the subject, for any of you anti-AGW kooks out there (and you know who you are) who are up to speed on the plethora of memes the AGW crowd has thrown at us over the years, you’re welcome to join in the fun over at Maggie’s. We’re compiling a do-all, end-all, AGW post, half of it focusing on the three types of deniers out there:

— Those who deny the earth is warming through natural means
— Those who deny the earth is warming at all
— Those who deny warming is a good thing

and then covering every single major trope the AGW crowd has pulled out over the years, from Mt. Kilimanjaro to what the latest CERN revelation blew apart.

It also covers a number of other aspects, such as the four warming/cooling cycles the media has gone through, the driving forces behind AGW, the reprehensible results of their actions in certain cases, there’s the quintessential example of AGW indoctrination, and I even quote a verse from John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’. Imagine that!

Actually, there’s significant questions that still remain with regards to the quality of the temperatures that the Berkley people used. The American sensor network is mainly placed in urban areas, and reflect the presence of asphalt more than CO2 in terms of warming impact. The warmists have been forced to deny the urban heat island affect in order to justify using those inflated temperatures — this is the warming affect of asphalt that any person can verify on their own by either watching the weather guy/gal on the TV or just by parking in a parking lot on a sunny day.
Land use around the existing temperature sensors is what is driving most of the 20th century warming. The sensors in rural and underdeveloped areas do not show much, if any, warming at all — and this is across the whole system, not just in specific regions.

The Berkley paper just waves its hand at the UHI problem, and seems to accept at face value a paper from 2001 or so that supposedly ‘proved’ there was no heat island affect. The methodology of that paper was pretty stupid — it relied on the fact that hot air doesn’t go up, but can go sideways.
Seriously, look it up. The process was to compare readings of temperatures around cities on windy days to readings on calm days — the theory being that the windy days would blow warmer air into the suburbs. When there wasn’t much difference between the temperatures on calm or windy days, voila! proof there’s no UHI. Not the sturdiest methodology, if you think about it.

One, and I mean just one of the biggest arguments against AGW that I have found is that although there is a correlation between temperature rises and increased CO2 levels, it’s bass ackwards. Temperature rises occurred before observed increased CO2 levels. That just implodes the whole causation argument as presented. An increase in one variable cannot be the cause for an increase in a second IF the first variable increased AFTER the second one. It is much more likely that increased temps lengthened growing seasons throughout the world, and vegitative CO2 increased thereof.

Then there is the much closer correlation between solar activity and global temperature, or the comparison of 160 gigatons of CO2 naturally produced annually by plants and the oceans vs. the pultry 5.5 gigatons produced annually by humans. One could also mention the arrogant assumption by the alarmists that what is normal today is and always has been normal. I mean, it’s what normal during their lifetime, ergo any variation is abnormal. Let’s ignore most of earth’s warmer-than-today history.

The geology records seem to indicate that increasing CO2 over time leads to substantial increases in plant life, which scrub out more CO2 and tend to push CO2 levels back down. Human activity is pumping enormous amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and is deforesting at the same time. So instead of a natural increase in CO2 scrubbing trees and plant life, we are disturbing the natural correction. The 11 year span of no temperature increase should not reduce concern over the need for CO2 scrubbing. The 11 years may simply reflect heat sink activity from arctic ice melts. It is not realistic to expect reduced carbon emissions. I think it is realistic to work on increasing CO2 scrubbing by reversing deforestation and increasing plankton levels in the seas. These are not difficult goals and it keeps us out of the carbon exchange plan that kills western economies while making Al Gore rich.

Mitt and Huntsman are trying to get the reporters to feel like they’re thoughtful intellectuals. Apparently you do that by parroting whatever TIME magazine believes.

Funny that Mann doesn’t want to share his data, isn’t it? I thought open sharing of data and replication of experiments were important to science.

hawksruleva on October 31, 2011 at 10:26 AM

That might have been their intention, but just goggle “technocrat and Mitt Romney” and see what comes up. Seymoure “I consult experts” Huntsman, missed his intended target, with his rant: republicans need to stop being anti science. Republicans aren’t anti science, they are anti junk science. That technocratic B.S. might go over in Utah, but the rest of the country is a little more hard nosed, we expect these pols to be bright enough to form their own opinions based on the data provided, just like the people they want to be elected to serve. Romney and Huntsman both are working from a deficit when it comes to middle class folks, they just can’t relate. I am sure they have some expert marketers working on this issue too LOL!

Same crowd that proclaimed just 10 short years ago that snow would be a thing of the past in England – something children would read about in history books. Hmmm. How’d that prediction issued with absolute certainty by Mann’s settled science colleagues turn out?

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

The models will never take into consideration all the relevant variables as long as the researchers start with the predetermined, anointed goal in mind and have political paymasters who expect nothing less. Ethical research has gone by the boards with these folks. It is now all about a self-perpetuating engine of funding for saying what activists and their useful idiot politicians want to hear.

I suggest the models be provided to the same on-line gamers who “crowd-sourced” the molecular model code for a new drug in three weeks after the university and industry “experts” failed to achieve a workable, correct 3-D model over the course of 3 years. So much for dissing “amateurs”.

Sulfur Dioxide also does nasty things to the human respiratory system, among other things. And we’re still only talking about environmental issues that are actually very real public health issues. We could expand the discussion to include the eradication of certain species of wildlife, some which may prove more essential than others, but I’m sure you’d dismiss anything like that out of hand.

ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 11:40 PM

This is why the UN should just come on in and pave over Yellowstone National Park. It is the single biggest and longest lasting contributor to air pollution. Wyoming should be fined severely for allowing this sulfur spewing wasteland to operate for so long.

I mean, who would want to go there? Its really no different than camping out next door to a petroleum refinery, and, Yellowstone produces nothing useful so you can’t even argue that its a necessary part of Gaia.

I think it is realistic to work on increasing CO2 scrubbing by reversing deforestation and increasing plankton levels in the seas. These are not difficult goals and it keeps us out of the carbon exchange plan that kills western economies while making Al Gore rich.

Mark30339 on October 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Or, to be more practical, we could incinerate everyone in China. That would reduce the CO2 emissions planet wide much more than trying to get plankton to reproduce.

We could accomplish this in a matter of minutes from now.

If it is the purpose of greenies to be pragmatic, then don’t be shy with the solutions.

Let’s examine ice core samples from around the globe going back 30 or 40 thousand years, then we’ll talk.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 31, 2011 at 7:14 AM

The Goracle beat you to it.

One problem, though. It has been determined, and accepted by everyone except Big Al (he may accept it, but he refuses to say it, even to Congress) that the ice cores show a rise of both temperature and CO2. In every case, temperature has preceded CO2 by ~800 years. This means that the temperature increase ALWAYS preceded the CO2 increase.

Secondly, when temperatures declined, CO2 remained at extreme elevated levels. This fact alone disconnects CO2 as a cause of “global warming”. If high CO2 causes increased temperatures, how can temperature decline while CO2 stays high?

I have been reading Ed’s posts for several years including his personal blog before he came to HotAir. I agree with much that he writes, so I was displeased with his views of AGW.
Fortunately he decided to educate himself on the subject so he is on the now popular side of the discussion and away from the side of the biased “scientists” on the governments tit. I am pleased to notice he referenced the viking experience in Greenland, which I have referenced in the two blogs for years.

your constant lies and changing arguments are a perfect parody of a dishonest, ignorant lefty who thinks he understands a subject but clearly does not.

Monkeytoe on October 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM

You’re a funny and very bitter little man who think that he’s smarter than the scientific community, reminding me of the average Taliban who bitches about Western science and then embraces every technology that’s within reach. And no, you’re not a victim except of your small mind.

Of course you understand this issue far better than the scientists at every major research university in the US- as well as every major scientific body outside of the climate science discipline, all of which have accepted the consensus. Your command of the science is second to none.

The world would be such a better place if Berners Lee, Andreesen, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs had your right-wing form of ‘intelligence’. After all, in your little world all the above are idiotic toadies of the left who actually understand nothing.

Well I’m glad that’s out in the open. The sooner environmentalists get over this AGW business, the sooner we can go back to being serious about preventing actual harmful pollution. Don’t think that because CO2 isn’t causing some global catastrophe that coal plants and other industrial practices don’t harm people.
ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

yeah

I’m thinking of all those people who didn’t freeze to death or die from heat

do you?

You think there is a free ride with no reaction?

Clean coal plants are very important and a life sustaining source of power and we have lots of coal among other things

Ed: I’ve also heard that this guy’s claim to be a “former skeptic” is in doubt. He was supposedly an early AGW supporter from everything anyone could find. So before he pushes the “former skeptic” label any further he should be asked to prove he ever was a skeptic. More than one person feels the “former skeptic” label is just his way of pushing his demand that everyone give in to the Alarmist point of view (I.E., as even former skeptics are now in agreement on the validity of AGW, we need to spend huge amount of money changing our life-styles. So who are you to disagree?)

Yes, many have seen the list on Wikipedia. None of those organizations dispute climate science, but for political reasons released ‘non-committal’ statements.

More importantly, the top scientific body of every major industrialized nation, including the Russia, China, Germany, Japan, and US Academies of Science have issued statements confirming man-made global warming. So those concerned about a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists have only scratched the surface. Apparently the conspiracy runs much deeper. Count in physicists and mathematicians as members of the elaborate climate ruse.

…as well as every major scientific body outside of the climate science discipline, all of which have accepted the consensus.

bayam on October 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Are you now denying that you claimed “all of which have ACCEPTED the consensus” described “every major scientific body outside of the climate science discipline”?

The American Institute of Professional Geologists released a statement that described their non-committial due to the very large number of members at that annual meeting who vehemently protested ANY consensus of opinion regarding AGW by the Institute. It had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the scientific data used to arrive at conclusions that did not fit with the past geologic history of the planet.

You can call it what you want, but everyone recognizes that your claim was and is false. But also, everyone expects you to not admit that fact. That is the reputation you have earned for yourself.

your constant lies and changing arguments are a perfect parody of a dishonest, ignorant lefty who thinks he understands a subject but clearly does not.
Monkeytoe on October 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM
You’re a funny and very bitter little man who think that he’s smarter than the scientific community, reminding me of the average Taliban who bitches about Western science and then embraces every technology that’s within reach. And no, you’re not a victim except of your small mind.
Of course you understand this issue far better than the scientists at every major research university in the US- as well as every major scientific body outside of the climate science discipline, all of which have accepted the consensus. Your command of the science is second to none.
The world would be such a better place if Berners Lee, Andreesen, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs had your right-wing form of ‘intelligence’. After all, in your little world all the above are idiotic toadies of the left who actually understand nothing.
Another lightweight who’s easily fooled by scientists-http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
bayam on October 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM

pooh, got your azz whooped there bayam

I can see the wincing in your flailing defense

bravo Monkeytoe!!!

Even if by the remotest of possible accidental coincidence resulting in leftist hord being correct in their quest

The world would be such a better place if Berners Lee, Andreesen, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs had your right-wing form of ‘intelligence’. After all, in your little world all the above are idiotic toadies of the left who actually understand nothing.

bayam on October 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Ha ha ha ha, Andreesen? Andreesen is an idiot. He simply happened to have programed a web browser when the internet was still in it’s infancy. You probably think that the drunk down the street is an expert number picker, too.

I would put my knowledge of global warming up against Andreesen, Jobs, and Gates any day.

“A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.”

“A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.”

Bill Blizzard on November 1, 2011 at 4:51 AM

Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it’s man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.
Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

How, exactly, do his first three sentences lead to the conclusion in his fourth? How is this “scientific”?

This is all anyone needs to know about so called climate scientist, they don’t base their findings on factual science -scientific method. They base their findings on “consensus”.

Are you paying attention Ron Huntsman? This isn’t standard scientific method or practice.

However for a number of these climate warming “Believers” involved in living off of soft government grant money – manipulating data to promote a hoax to bilk rubes out of their hard earned money, works pretty well on the sheep.

When the FOIA releases Mann’s data, it’s going to start getting real interesting. My hope is that people are charged for perpetrating this scam, found guilty, and are sentenced to jail time.